Republican file photo by MARK M. MURRAYHolyoke Police Chief Anthony R. Scott has long been an advocate for the election of judges.

These standards are usually reserved for candidates to legislative or executive positions. Therefore, if voters elect judges based on those standards, judicial integrity can be called into question, their accountability slanted toward only those who vote.

Imagine a coal company losing a $50 million court case, then appealing to the state supreme court. The second hearing finally occurs just after one of the court's "liberal" judges was up for re-election.

That judge lost a $5 million campaign to a young "corporate lawyer who had never argued a case before the court," whose own campaign received $3 million from the coal company's CEO alone. The company won when the state supreme court reversed the lower court's decision.

This story comes from Cody Corliss, an opinion contributor to the Christian Science Monitor, who wrote a 2008 article entitled "Electing judges - with cash."

The story he told was that of Massey Energy, the largest coal producer in West Virginia, one of 38 states that elect their judges.

In his article, Corliss argues against electing judges, citing the 2006 judicial campaign season, in which businesses reportedly gave $15.3 million to candidates; lawyers, $7.4 million; and "third-party interest advertising," $8.5 million.

Ryan R. Migeed

However, this opinion is sharply contrasted by David K. Dewolf, a guest columnist for seattlepi.com who wrote an article during the very same election year Corliss cites.
Dewolf writes, "Electing judges keeps them accountable." He argues that the people should be able to vote a judge in or out based on "their fidelity to the rule of law."
While Dewolf concedes that "there is a risk that voters will confuse fidelity to the rule of law with a shared commitment to particular policy preferences," he points out the lack of restraint of federal judges.

Because they "don't face re-election," Dewolf writes, they "will come to see themselves as having the authority to remake society according to their own ideals."

But on what credentials would the public be voting a judge in or out?

Based on the story from West Virginia above, the most obvious criterion would be having passed the bar and become a lawyer.

An ideal candidate would have argued a host of different cases before the court. This would mean the candidate would have to be an established lawyer, and one who is familiar with the law.

However, as Dewolf mentioned in passing in his argument for the election of judges, "there is a risk that voters" will elect a judge based on his or her stance on certain issues, and whether the candidate is perceived as liberal or conservative.

These standards are usually reserved for candidates to legislative or executive positions. Therefore, if voters elect judges based on those standards, judicial integrity can be called into question, their accountability slanted toward only those who vote.

Massachusetts is currently having its own debate on the merits of electing judges, as reported by Ken Ross on masslive.com.

In March of this year, State Senator Michael R. Knapik, R-Westfield, filed legislation that would ultimately let the people determine who stays on the bench.

Under the proposed bill, the governor would have the power to appoint judges to a six-year term.

At the end of that term, the judge would have to run for re-election, leaving it to the people of the state to decide whether the judge remains in that position for another six years.

Currently, potential appointees in the state of Massachusetts are recommended to the governor by a committee. The governor then chooses one, and appoints him or her for life. Under Article XCVIII of the state constitution, though, judges are required to retire at age 70.

Knapik's bill was proposed at the recommendation of Holyoke Police Chief Anthony R. Scott, who said, "The only people who are not accountable to 'We the people' of Massachusetts are the judges."

However, the president of the Massachusetts Judges Conference, Superior Court Judge Peter W. Agnes Jr., said that if a judge is going to be elected based on his or her record, "then the inevitable outcome is going to be a popularity contest," which is "not what judging is all about."

Even Holyoke's City Council elected, by a 12-2 vote, to oppose Knapik's bill, according to a June 22 article in The Republican by Ross.

Despite the opposing opinions, though, there may be a way to appease both sides.

It is a way of selecting judges used in Missouri, which Corliss calls the Missouri method.

In Missouri, three potential judges are selected by a "nonpartisan nominating commission" and forwarded to the governor. The governor chooses one, who "serves for a trial period." At the end of that period, "the public then votes in a retention election. If the judge is retained, he or she then serves for a full term."

The "Missouri method" uses both an election and an appointment, and therefore may be the solution both sides are looking for.